The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The article fails to establish notability backed by reliable sources. Fictionreviewer.com is neither a notable website nor a reliable source. Also, the book has not had reviews by major critics. If it can be shown that the necessary criteria in WP:BK are met, the article can be recreated. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fledgling Jason Steed[edit]

Fledgling Jason Steed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I was giving it the benefit of the doubt before I checked the very specific references given for the reviews, and all of them failed, except the one to FictionReviewer, which does not appear to be notable. Much of the sourcing is to messageboards and self-published sites. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have to disagree, the sources include published newspaper articles, Fictionreviewer.com awarded it YA book of the year, it beat Twlight!, Plus Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk has had more than the required reviews by independant readers who have to submit a credit card for identification, as it has so many by so many reviewers and not just one or two, this should suffice. We cant call these self-published, when Amazon takes great precuations.

The hits the page has substained the last 7 days have made it very worthy and shows the interest in the information page. I agree we need to keep Wikipedia as factual as possible, but we must also be prepared not to alienate the originators who have spent many hours submitting information. The memorial for Raymond V Steed the youngest recorded service death is being funded by volunteers. The author has submitted 80% of that fund from his book sales. This has been verifeid on some of the sites the originator posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clear this up, customer reviews are unreliable per definitionem, as Amazon staff obviously doesn't have time to read each book and decide if they agree or disagree with a review. Even I can submit my credit card number to Amazon and write reviews, but that doesn't make me an acclaimed book critic. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as this book doesn't appear to suffice WP:BK standards. Also, note that self-published books are usually subject to greater scrutiny on Wikipedia. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the reviews appear to be in reliable sources. No reliable sources appear to have commented on this book's popularity. All we have that is reliable is a short article in a local paper, suggesting that a film deal has been discussed, but lacking an official announcement from Pinewood, the studio mentioned in the article, it is hard to consider this credible. It is extraordinarily rare for a self-published book to be made into a film by a major studio (I honestly can't think of any examples at the moment. A Time to Kill is sometimes cited as self-published, but was actually a small press book). I think what we see here is a paper picking up rumours and running them without fact checking. FictionReviewer doesn't seem to be a credible source; they accept e-mail submission of reviews from unknown submitters and I would be wary of trusting a site of book reviews that states "the speed of the interent" ... "insures" they review books first. JulesH (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I would consider the Yorkshire Evening Post, Navy News and Soldier magazine as "reliable sources." Indeed, the British Government looks to Navy News and Solider for information. Wikipedia is all about 'notability.' This book is 'notable' in that it doesn't just have dozens of Google hits, it has many written word references too. The book has been reviewed in numerous 'notable' publications, including the August 2008 edition of the Navy News, the October 2008 edition of Soldier magazine and the September 11, 2008, edition of the Yorkshire Evening Post - a VERY prominent newspaper. Book reviews in these publications ARE NOT always published on line - but that doesn't make them any the less notable. The reviews are available to anyone requesting a copy of that publication. Just because something doesn't pop up on Google, it doesn't mean that it is an automatic candidate for AFD. Also: this article was adopted by both the NovelsWikiProject and the Children'sLiteratureWikiProject of Wikipedia before an independent editor decided to AFD this.--Beehold (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You mean they deleted the review from page 26 of http://publishing.yudu.com/Ajoet/NavyNewsAug08/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http://www.navynews.co.uk/archived-editions.aspx and filled it in with something else?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the magazine is online. That is normal for newspapers and magazines. If you want to see the review in full, just ring the magazine and ask for a copy to be faxed. It is there, no question. I honestly can't see why you are arguing this. The book has also been written about in newspapers such as the Newport News and the Cornish and Devon Post, and mentioned - briefly - on the local BBC news programme (when the author made a donation to a war memorial).-Beehold (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete over sourcing concerns for this self-published book, notably the forums, blogs, and the apparent non-existence of the Navy News source. I've reviewed the online version of the publication and it appears to be quite complete. Also, the presence of WikiProject tags does not indicate "adoption" or endorsement of an article, just that it's in their area of interest. - Dravecky (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rework - the copy evidences an obvious self or fan promotino activity however it does appear to have limited notability, see above comments about the "better" sources cited. The article should be trimmed and edited down to a more balance copy. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 05:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - the book does not seem to meet any of the criteria for notability in WP:BK. However, the article probably looks worse than it is due to the unnecessary number of inline citations. Wayniac (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Check my last version, where I trimmed out the redundant and messageboard refs. Doesn't look much better, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that Beehold has put lots of effort into cleaning up the article. It looks better but there's still too much clutter. For example, the Fictionreviewer.com award does not strengthen the notability claims of the book (this site doesn't even have a Page Rank). Wayniac (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Won an award from a notable website and received significant discussion in no less than 3 reliable sources (WP:GNG). The article needs some work in cutting self-published sources that make claims about anyone else than the author, but being self-published does not neccesarily mean a book is not notable -- the chance is just a bit higher. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  MGM, how did you establish that FictionReviewer.com was notable? http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fictionreviewer.com%22&start=40 gives 26 GHits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And if you run the search without the quotation marks around the name, you get 7.100.[1]--Beehold (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  ...which is fairly irrelevant, as it then picks up every web page with "fiction reviewer".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See my comments above about fictionreviewer.com: they accept e-mail submissions and have horrible errors in their use of English on their contact page. The two combined, I feel, leaves them with zero credibility as a reliable source for book reviews. And despite User:Beehold's suggestions to the contrary, SarekOfVulcan's link does appear to be to a complete copy of the magazine that is claimed to contain a review of the novel. Not an online edition, a scan of the print edition. And the Yorkshire Evening Post seem to have omitted the article from their web archive, despite the fact that it contains a whole load of other content that would seem to be more relevant to miss out than a review of a notable book that has been overlooked by the mainstream media. That seems much more important than their pub review, or a letter complaining about opening times of Leeds market. I'm struggling to find any sources regarding the content of Soldier magazine; they don't have an archive, so only the current issue is available online. So, unless you've actually seen any of these sources, I'd be dubious about whether they really exist. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but from where I'm sitting it looks as though these sources have simply been invented. JulesH (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have today emailed Soldier, Navy News and the Yorkshire Evening Post, asking if it would be possible for them to email me scans/confirm if/when the reviews were printed in their publications. I have nothing concrete to post here yet, except that someone at the YEP did say that book reviews are not usually posted on their website, unless part of a bigger news story. (As in Harry Potter). If I receive anything at all, I will upload it here, for all to see. Meanwhile, I have trimmed - yet again - the article refs.--Beehold (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and make smaller. Such as Pillar of Fire that was just a novel without the huge following, but it was posted by --SarekOfVulcan it never had the sales and fan base Jason Steed has gained from word of mouth. I am 14 and new to this, and yes a fan of the title, But I don't think it should be completely deleted. Cant you guys compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Duplicate vote stricken. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh? I'd like to check that. Where did you get your sales figures for Pillar of Fire? That would be useful to have in the article...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Pillar of Fire Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 1,929,824 in Books
  Fledgling Jason Steed Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank:6,151.
  It worse on Amazon.com. Plus Fledgling has had over 27 5 star reviews Piller of fire has had just 7. There are the sales figures you asked for sir. Go to Barnes and Nobles it the same. But I dont want to get into a quibble with you sir, I know your intentions are very good.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the assumption of good faith: it's greatly appreciated. I would just like to point out that PoF came out the year Amazon went online, so most of its sales were (presumably) in physical bookstores. I'd have to assume that most of Fledgling's sales were online, so the online sales numbers are going to look a bit different between the two.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self published, which normally requires exceptionally good evidence for notability. when Reliable sources notice it, if they ever do, then there can be an article. The material accumulated so far is merely that from a publicity campaign. Not that its impossible for it to be notable, but not so far. It was presumably sent to the British Library, but its been 6 months from publication & they haven't bothered to catalog it yet. Nor does any of GoogleNews's sources mention it. Now, it is by no means impossible for a book of this nature to actually become notable, so when there are sources, there can be an appropriate article. But I'm a little puzzled, for there is something a little odd in a book at this level of popularity not getting some mainstream notice. I wonder if it just might be possible to write an article about the real Raymond Victor Steed, and mention the book, with a redirect. DGG (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Facts: The book is mentioned in at least one on-line verified independent publication[2], with possibly more to come. It has 46,800 Google hits (with a speech mark limited search)[3] - showing, at least, a wide internet awareness of the book. It has won an award[4]. The author has been signed to a notable literary agent and film producer (Vampire's Kiss) Barbara J. Zitwer.[5]. Statistics show there is an obvious "demand" for this page on Wikipedia.[6] The book seems to be doing well in the (Wikipedia and Time magazine approved) Goodreads.com website Young Adult Book of 2009 listopedia vote[7]. And so, Keep.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, that would be 96 Google hits, not 46K. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Fledgling+Jason+Steed%22&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUK274&start=90&sa=N --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And 8 people voting for it is "doing well"??????--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry SarekOfVulcan, but I repeatedly get 46,800 Google hits for this book with speechmarks around the "Fledgling Jason Steed": [8], not the 96 you state. And eight votes at Goodreads.com is doing well when those eight votes appear to put the book in the lead of the rest of the competition. (In front of Alex Rider etc)[9]. In my opinion. this book should stay on Wikipedia. Whichever way you argue it, this book is clearly WP 'Notable.'-- Myosotis Scorpioides 21:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click on page 10 at the bottom of your 46K search page, and you'll see the actual number.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is interesting. When you put in different variations of the book, and its author's name, you get an amazing range of figures. For example, on page ten of "Jason Steed", you get 83,000-plus,[10], while on page 10 of "Mark A Cooper" you get 14,000-plus.[11] Whatever way you play it though, the book just keeps appearing, appearing, appearing. And, to me, that makes it notable.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 22:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7th link on first link you post above:

Concurring Opinions

But I can't see why a senior status system would be disallowed by the Constitution. Posted by: Jason Steed at September 11, 2007 01:40 PM ...

When was Fledgling published again?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan, you are taking it personal. look: http://www.google.com/search?q=fledgling+jason+steed&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1 its over 50,000. you have got " in between it when you search the title. The book is clearly outselling 'Pillar of Fire' and you wrote an article on that, its selling around the world, it has a huge following, and 50,000 plus on google. What is the differnece between this and the book 'Pillar of Fire' that you wrote about. Apart from the fact 'Pillar of Fire' is ranked down at 1.9 million compared to a 1278 that Fledgling Jason Steed is ranked. Like you say maybe they are selling 'Pillar of Fire'n book store and not Amazon. But tehy dont stock it at Barnes and nobles books stores, it has to be a speacial order. So what is wrong with the posting? Life is too short bud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 18:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your search resulted in exactly 255 hits. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 10:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a very well known (and award-winning) young adult book, with numerous references, reviews etc on the internet. It has been repeatedly compared to Jimmy Coates, Young Bond, Alex Rider and the CHERUB series and, as such, merits a Wikipedia page.--79.64.153.87 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whilst I have no real opinion on whether or not this article should remain, I wish to point out that, as an ex-key player in the CHERUB world, a lot of books are compared to those listed before. Partly because there's been a surge in teenage spy novels and partly because people often use it as a form of publishing. The phrase "If you loved Alex Rider then you'll love this!" is a common ploy to attract readers to a book which is a dreary read and merely tries to fly on the tailwinds of a truly successful novel. Though I make no assumption that this is the case. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Has anyone else seen http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080916123559AAgv34G which claims that M.A. Cooper is really Anthony Horowitz? I know that Yahoo! Answers is notoriously unreliable, but perhaps someone with a bit more time could check this out. I feel a positive on this would change my initial inclination for deletion - and possibly others'. Peridon (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wouldn't believe that at all. I've heard talk bandied around but you're referring to Yahoo Answers which in turn refers to Amazon. It's just spurious rumours. In fact, looking through Amazon, people seem to be in agreement that the book wasn't written by Horowitz because it's not of the same class. One commentator personally knows the author. I wouldn't be surprised if these rumours were started by the publishers or author to try and draw attention to an otherwise un-notable book... Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The book is self published just like Christopher Paolini self published to start. The fact is the book is a phenomenon and merits a page on WP. I don't think the author who ever he is needs to draw attention to the book by starting a rumor. The poor guy seems to be trying to put the record straight among his fans; http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com/bn/board/message?board.id=TeenReads&thread.id=25205&jump=true

If anyone with an ounce of sense googles the title you can see the authors own website and pages. What merits a keep is the awards, book, sales, history of Raymond V Steed, the sites such as goodreads.com where the book out shines every other book in its class and even has its own group. Despite notablity of review after review on Amazon, goodreads, Barnes and Noble, they cant have all be written by the author? there are 29 on Amazon, 74 on goodreads they all rave about the book. Someone on WP has taken this wrong and what WP is for. Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwesley1995 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC) — Johnwesley1995 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

The history of Raymond Steed is completely irrelevant to the notability of this book. If it's a phenomenon, where are the WP:reliable sources to prove it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quote from WP:BK about Barnes&Noble forums, Amazon reader reviews etc.: "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 10:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sourcing issues combined with self-publishing are too much of a concern here. As [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan] points out, if the book has crossed over from self-publishing to be a major commercial phenomenon, there should be reviews, best seller listings from market publications, etc. No prejudice towards re-creation if unambivalent sources are presented. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

++::Comment to Spasemunki: The article is sourced to an independent newspaper, as well as the author's website. (Others promised to follow) Rather more than some Wikipedia book articles at the moment. The page is also receiving a large amount of hits each day - almost 1,000 yesterday.[12]-- Myosotis Scorpioides 09:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Number of hits' is not a notability or verifiability criteria. The paper used as a source appears to be a very small local paper; papers like this often accept what are essentially press releases as articles. For a non-self published book I might find that to be OK, but I think a higher level of scrutiny should be applied in this case- if there is really a major motion picture about this book pending, as the article claims, it would be covered in sources other than a weekly paper for north Cornwall. 'Pillar of Fire' is perhaps an AfD candidate itself, but isn't self-published and doesn't affect this AfD per WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete I still find it amazing that so many people with no other editing history come on and tell us what Wikipedia is for. (Actually, no I don't...) It would be perfectly possible for the author or a friend to have written the reviews. I am not suggesting they have, only that it is not impossible for this to occur. I would prefer to see independent and reliable references before changing my mind. I to a large extent discount the Launceton Post knowing the stuff that can get into local papers. The Author Nation references are posted by the author. Fiction Reviewer is a place for anyone to submit reviews, and I do not know what safeguards they have against spamming, if any. I may be missing something, but I do not seem able to access any reviews on that site. It says I can submit a review without registering or signing in, which suggests little safeguarding, but I can find no way as a non-registered user to see the reviews. The Sarasota reference is also posted by Mark Cooper. The Blinkx 'trailer' is a brief reference and link to the author's website. I cannot access the Navy News or Soldier sources, I find it hard to see how the YEP would be reviewing a just published first novel by a Launceston man living in Florida. If you do have more suitable references that are verifiable, or if an editor with an established track record here can verify the offline sources, please do so. I'm sorry, but I take the rantings of single purpose accounts with a considerable pinch of salt. Peridon (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a search for this book on the Waterstones site, with no result. http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/simpleSearch.do?simpleSearchString=Fledgling+Jason+Steed&searchType=0&Image1.x=9&Image1.y=17 I can find many books there with Fledgling in the title, but none with Jason Steed. To all those coming here to support the article: Please note that we are not denying the existence of the book. We are saying that it hasn't yet achieved the level of notability required. Amazon and Barnes and Noble do not need to stock books in order to sell them. They can call them in when required. High Street sellers such as Waterstones stock what they can sell. Not everything there is notable. But if it's not there, it fairly certainly isn't. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the statement: "I still find it amazing that so many people with no other editing history come on and tell us what Wikipedia is for." I have several DYK's, Good Articles and two Featured Articles to my name. And yes, I say Keep to this article.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 11:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you do but Johnwesley1995's, for example, sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to this page. The comment wasn't necessarily targeted at you. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The remark was not, indeed, targeted at those with an editing history. It was partly referring back to certain other AfDs I've taken part in where outside campaigns were organised to bolster the 'keep vote'. And hoping to prevent it here. If single purpose accounts came up with anything reliable and verifiable, I'd welcome them. Most of them never get beyond 'it's notable because we like it' or similar. I'm not a deletionist. I've taken part in discussions with SPA people on their own board to try to extract something reliable. (Without success...) If references I consider sound come up, I can change my mind. (Have done in a few AfDs before.) Peridon (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can see how anyone can justify removing an article just because the book is self published? Sultan seem to have taken a personal dislike to the book, yet he posted a full page on a book Pillar of Fire that does not sell and has no notability.

Here we clearly have a book that has a huge folowing, has won an award on a website by voters, has been published in the Cornish & Devon Post, is clearly ranked among its peers, No doubt to that, has its own group on Goodreads.com, you will get over 50,000 google searches if you type Fledgling Jason Steed, or just type, Horowitz Jason Steed, or young 007 or Raymond V steed.The WP page is getting a huge amount of hits since it has gone live, Just tell me so I can understand please, I am new to this. Why does Beeholds article have to be removed when Sultans Pillar of Fire can stay? What is wrong with having a book listed here? It seems some have gone out of ther eway to find negatives, no one will comment on its success on the worlds largest book seller: Amazon, you just bring up you could not find it on Waterstones serch list? or belittle a newspaper or website. As for the comment on if its not in a book store its not notable. NO. Book stores now allow space for publishing houses and do not stock self published book. They only stock mass market publications. The comment made about Eragon author is true, his sales where only on the interent and not in stores until he was picked up. As for the comment on did Anthony Horowitz write it under a pen name check out Richard Bachman. Then check out Anthony Horowitz myspace site; http://www.myspace.com/anthonyhorowitzbooks this site has a picture of the book Fledgling Jason Steed and if you become a friend, it has 8 videos of his books and yes you guessed it one is the Fledgling Jason Steed video. There are at least 25 other book sites that state Horowitz wrote it just like the Richard Bachman case. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/973833 http://www.allreaders.com/Board.asp?listpage=1&BoardID=24378 http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080916123559AAgv34G http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2QYCL6YYLS4K6&asin=074144934X&cdThread=Tx2417HYWK4A5ZA http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1006753 http://www.thebookseller.com/blogs/61893-page.html that one is actually run by Horowitz's publishers. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1845837/fledgling_jason_steed_mark_a_cooper_book_trailer/ http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Anthony-Horowitz/Dennis-Abrams/e/9780791089682 http://amapedia.amazon.com/view/Fledgling:+Jason+Steed/id=917003and here it is mentioned on WATERSTONES http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=6255756 Page after page its mentioned. wehther Horowitz or Cooper wrote it, that has to be notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Peridon I have spent yesterday and this morning doing as you asked sir, trying to find out if like the name Richard Bachman Horowitz did write it? I find it strange the www.fictionreviewer.com has the author of the month as Anthony Horowitz? I wonder if it is all a big trick by Horowitz. if not why would his publishers and agents say not say something and allow it on his sites? after all most of the reviews written about say its better than Alex Rider ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy tucker NC (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Duplicate vote stricken. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me debunk some of these statements: huge following in terms of 255 Google hits is more of a delete argument. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS ("X has its page" and "it has better reviews than Y" is not a credible argument, send Pillar of Fire to AfD if you don't like that. Few books on Amazon are notable enough for their page on Wikipedia and probably every single book there has at least 5-6 reviews AFAIK. Just because the writer might have been someone else, it does not make a difference regarding its notability; you might make a case if reliable sources agree that Horowitz indeed wrote the book, but all else is WP:CRYSTAL and per WP:UNDUE most probably doesn't even deserve to be mentioned. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • One criteria of WP notability is if a book is stocked in a number of libraries. A quick Google found this book stocked in a fair few, including:[13][14][15][16]. I will continue searching for other, WP reliable, sources.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh If the author of this book is Horowitz, then this book might achieve notability sooner than if Cooper is the author. Might. It might achieve a mention in Horowitz's article. If the book is really selling in notable quantities, it might merit the article. So far, as the Admiral points out, we don't know. We have no hard evidence. If it is selling and about to be filmed, there should be not too hard to find traces of it online. Not self-published references, not mentions in the course of something else (the BBC one referred to above was probably from self-supplied material), and not material exclusively about Raymond Steed which is not pertinent to the discussion. As to Pillar of Fire, that is by a long established author with a long list of published work. This one might not meet the standards here - bring it to Articles for Deletion with your reasons if you think it should be deleted. We'll discuss it in the same way. As to the YEP - if I'm not called in to work on Tuesday, I'll ring them. I've just looked through the wrong Infinity Publishing site, infinitypublishingcompany.com as opposed to infinitypublishing.com. Confusing. Now I've found the right one, I can't find Fledgling in their success stories section. Peridon (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• All the best with the YEP Peridon. I've had no response to my emails to the paper so far. I also rang last Thursday, and was put through to the back issues dept. "We don't keep back copies for more than six months." Got through to the newspaper's library, promised a PDF copy of page via email, but that hasn't arrived yet either. Perhaps it is the Easter break?--Beehold (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.